Ask your difficult questions of an Atheist.

What is so amazing is that they think Responsibility ends at birth and not for the next 18 years. But as I said to them life begins at conception but ends at birth when they might have to help pay for the unwanted child

 

I'm going to explain "consent" to you...

Say JaneBain invites BettyBoop into her home.

BettyBoop consents to enter .

Then JaneBain proceeds to beat up BettyBoop .

In court, after BettyBoop pressed charges, JaneBain tells the judge she is innocent of all wrong doing (beating up BettyBoop) because BettyBoop CONSENTED to enter her house....and JaneBain interpreted that to mean that BettyBoop consented to anything and everything.

JaneBain's attorney crawls under the table and the judge laughs and JaneBian is convicted.

Consent to one act, entering the house, was NOT consent to any other act....and if you don't believe you may have JaneBain as a cell mate

 

Do NOT suggest I' saying things that I am very clearly not saying.

If you can't understand something I've said, then ask.

 

This doen't apply to anything I've said.

Also, it ignores the option of adoption.

I'm not in favor of laws against women as a direction for lowering the number of abortions. But, I'm not going to make headway by accommodating false argument.

 

Let me guess, you’re a man who can just casually mention giving away a child you went through nine months of creating..

 

Adoption involves 9 months of pregnancy...did you know that?

Now if only I could see you prove an argument is false.

 

NO.

LIke I have said over and over and over again that I strongly support the right of a woman to make the decision concerning how to handle a pregnancy - including abortion. The woman's caregivers (doctors, councelors, lawyers, etc) are only advisors in that decision. The government has no place in this.

I DO believe one can NOT claim that accidentally getting pregnant (due to failed prophylaxis, for example) is the same as getting raped or going through incest.

And, I brought this up as a reason that some "pro life" advocates give for being willing to be more flexible about cases of rape and incest. I'm not advocatiing the antiabortion position - just pointing out a nuance in that position. Look back and see what I said before jumping to conclusions.

 

WillReadmore said: ↑
Rape and incest are crimes against a person with both immediate and long term impacts that are negative and serious.

That's not like consensual sex - which involves the partners chosing to take the risk of pregnancy.


FoxHastings said: ↑
OK, you have no answers....not many do...

Whatever your two sentences meant they were too scrambled to address..


Sorry, that you deny pregnancy causes harm and long term impact on women...nice way to denigrate women and what they go through in pregnancy...

Well, your post above was confusing and seem to eliminate the fact that pregnancy causes harm , has a long term impact , and can be negative and serious.

That's what we were talking about.

Not how the woman got pregnant which should NOT be an issue or enter into the equation at all.

 

WHO has?

And I pointed out how hypocritical it is for Anti-Choicers to call one fetus precious life that should be saved at the price of personal freedom but flip flop and say "murdering " another fetus is OK.

That clearly indicates they want to punish women who have consensual sex by taking THEIR rights away.

 

I don't agree with you on that.

There are those who would be OK with laws against abotion if it didn't include those who are victims of rape or incest. You know that's true, as it has been a political issue.

Some see justification for this in that the woman was assaulted and had no choice. And, the requirement to carry the child of a rapist to term can be a psychological horror as well as other trauma related to the assault. Thus these individuals recognize arguments on both sides - pro life, but also care for victims of serious and lasting crime.

In some cases rapists have been able to argue for various rights related to being the biological parent - facing a woman who chooses to raise such a baby with repeatedly bringing her rapist into her life!

Suggesting that these thoughts on the part of "pro life" folks indicate a desire to punish is just plain not indicated.

 

Since theism BELIEVES in ancient superstitions about imaginary deities then atheism is the OPPOSITE which would be the NON-BELIEF in theist superstitions and imaginary deities.

Ergo there is NO equivalent to BELIEF in Atheism because none is needed or required in order to be an atheist.

 

Actually there is an argument to be made about theists wanting to punish women who have abortions. Christianity is divided by those who take the bible metaphorically and those that take it literally. A woman who has an abortion because she does not have the resources to care for and raise another child is not a "sinner" in the metaphorical sense since her decision is made with respect to her love for the children she already has. Metaphorical Christians are well aware their god must be held accountable for miscarriages if he is going to hold a woman responsible for an abortion since they are virtually identical.

The fundamentalist Christians are the ones who take the bible LITERALLY. To them the biblical passage about the fetus in the uterus means that to have an abortion is to commit murder. In their literalist view anything that they perceive as a "violation" of what is in the bible MUST ALWAYS be punished. They see this as their "duty" to their deity. Perhaps the worst aspect of this bizarre literalist approach is the LEGAL DOUBLE STANDARD whereby the doctor who performs the abortion is a "murderer" while the women who provides the "victim" is not held accountable under the Law of the Land per the way they are writing their anti-abortions laws. This inconsistency brings about the PUNISHMENT of women by FORCING them to bear and raise UNWANTED children by the DENIAL of the RIGHT to an abortion.

 

If you don't believe in anything, then why are you even still bothering to stay alive or even caring about the lives and saftey of others by following the law?

If man is merely a "lump of atoms" and has no soul or intrinsic value, then why don't you go and marry a cactus, because - afterall - man and cactus are the same - a bunch of atoms, masses of nothingness.

 

WillReadmore said: ↑
NO.

LIke I have said over and over and over again that I strongly support the right of a woman to make the decision concerning how to handle a pregnancy - including abortion. The woman's caregivers (doctors, councelors, lawyers, etc) are only advisors in that decision. The government has no place in this.

I DO believe one can NOT claim that accidentally getting pregnant (due to failed prophylaxis, for example) is the same as getting raped or going through incest.
Click to expand...

WHO has?

Just can't answer those pertinent questions...

Yes, it is and quite clearly....just because you refuse to see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

You refuse to see a lot of things that don't fit your preconceived idea like the questions in my posts that you never can answer...


I'll let you go on with your little speeches that you call "discussion".

 

this whole thread is a fraud, they cant even answer the easy questions much less the 'tough' questions its all about false advertising.

they cant answer mine either:

why do atheists pretend their atheism is based in logic and reason when they have no factual proof that God does not exist on which to base that conclusion?

Atheism is based in faith not logic, not reason.

 

"Faith" is based on faith, not reason or logic,.

 

So your only reason for existing is an imaginary guy in the sky?


Sorry, but many people have many reasons to live without having to create fairy tales.

Not believing in a "god" doesn't eviscerate a person, they are still humans with all kinds of reasons to live .

I haven't seen anyone say that but you..

 

Your post makes no sense.

 

Personally, I'm not a big fan of the commonly used terminology for either side of the debate. "Pro-life" makes it seem like the other side is heartless, which isn't the case, and "pro-choice" makes it seem like the other side wants to forcefully control women's lives, which also isn't the case.

That, and determining precisely when human life begins (and when it should be protected). Right now, our laws are arguing a paradox, as it considers the unborn child a person if the pregnant mother wants the child (the death of an unborn child is homicide; it was murdered), yet it simultaneously does not consider the unborn child a person if the pregnant mother doesn't want the child (the death of an unborn child is NOT homicide; it was not murdered). Which one is it?

And my thought is that the woman already made her choice when she decided to have sex. Her not wanting the child resulting from her choice to have sex does not give her the right to end her child's life. It's morally wrong to end that child's life. That child has just as much of a right to life as anybody else has.

 

Consent to sex is not consent to being beaten up afterwards.

 

Does anyone actually have questions for an Atheist?

 

No I'm not. I have clearly defined what "belief" means, and have consistently stuck to that very particular definition in all of my argumentation. Belief is "the acceptance of an argument as a truth".

You're not "lacking belief"; you are still expressing your beliefs... You are believing that pink unicorns don't exist, believing that you are not 7'3", and believing that George Clooney does not wish to leave his wife for you. -- You are accepting those arguments as if they are the truth; you are expressing your beliefs. Same thing when one speaks of god(s); they are expressing their beliefs regarding god(s).

 

I take it you cannot answer my question.

 

No, ma'm. I am an atheist.

That is not an answer.

This one requires more elaoration.

So, in what way are human beings different from,say, catuses if your view of human beings is that they are not "God's creations" and/or "creatures with souls"?

 

Not only does it have nothing to do with Atheism, I am unsure what the question actually is. Are you asking why I dont marry a plant or why I follow the law?

Either question involves common sense not Atheism.